coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in Lytkarino.
5.  The applicant has been involved in a series of disputes in connection with division of the property she used to own jointly with Mr S., her brother.
6.  In 1995 the applicant filed a claim concerning the division of a house and a plot of land.
7.  On 14 September 1995 the Vidnoye Town Court of the Moscow Region (the Town Court) granted her claim in part.
8.  On 15 December 1999 the Presidium of the Moscow Regional Court quashed the judgment by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
9.  On 23 October 2003 the Town Court granted the applicant’s claim in part.
10.  On 25 February 1997 the Town Court granted S.’s claim against the applicant concerning her objections to the reconstruction of the house.
11.  On 3 October 1997 the applicant brought another claim against S. seeking the demolition of the structures he allegedly built without a relevant permit.
12.  It appears that the consideration of the claims was adjourned on numerous occasions, mostly because of the conduct of various expert examinations. In particular, on 8 December 2000 the Town Court ordered to conduct two expert examinations and stayed the proceedings pending their outcome. The proceedings were resumed on 1 August 2002 when the expert opinions were sent to the court and a hearing was scheduled for 2 October 2002.
13.  On 17 May 2007 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claim.
14.  On 13 September 2007 the Moscow Regional Court (the Regional Court) upheld the judgment on appeal.
15.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a claim against S. for damages.
16.  On 12 December 2005 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims.
17.  On 6 March 2006 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
18.  On an unspecified date S. brought an action against the applicant, who had dismantled the fence he had constructed.
19.  On 19 December 2007 the Town Court found for S.
20.  On 13 March 2008 the Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
21.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a claim against S. seeking recognition of her property rights to the newly constructed buildings on the plot of land.
22.  On 12 May 2008 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s claims.
23.  On 2 September 2008 the Moscow Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Paris.
6.  On 10 February 2004 an investigation was launched in respect of the applicant for book theft. The investigating authorities took his fingerprints.
7. By a judgment handed down on 15 February 2005 following an appeal against a sentence delivered on 28 April 2004 by the Paris Criminal Court, the Paris Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant.
8.  On 28 September 2005 the applicant was taken into police custody under the flagrante delicto procedure, also for book theft. He was again fingerprinted.
9.  On 2 February 2006 the proceedings were discontinued by the Paris public prosecutor.
10.  The fingerprints taken during these proceedings were entered into the national fingerprint database (fichier automatisé des empreintes digitales - “the FAED”).
11.  In a letter of 21 April 2006 to the Paris public prosecutor, the applicant requested the removal of his fingerprints from the FAED.
12.  On 31 May 2006 the public prosecutor ordered the deletion only of the fingerprints taken during the first set of proceedings. He argued that retaining one specimen of the applicant’s fingerprints was justified in the latter’s interests, as it could rule out his involvement in acts committed by a third person stealing his identity.
13.  On 26 June 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal with the judge of the Paris Tribunal de grande instance with responsibility for civil liberties and detention matters.
14.  By order of 25 August 2006, the judge with responsibility for civil liberties and detention matters dismissed his appeal. He held that retaining the fingerprints was in the interests of the investigating authorities, as it provided them with a database comprising as full a set of references as possible. Furthermore, this measure was not prejudicial to the applicant thanks to the confidentiality of the database, which prevented any impact on the applicant’s private or social life.
15.  On 21 December 2006 the President of the Investigation Division of the Paris Court of Appeal upheld this order.
16.  In a judgment of 1 October 2008 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant on the grounds that since the procedure was written he had been in a position to put forward his arguments and take cognisance of the reasons for the public prosecutor’s objection to the complete deletion of the fingerprints. It added that thanks to the evidence produced during the proceedings, it could verify that the request had been addressed in accordance with the legislation and international treaties cited by the applicant, which included Article 8 of the Convention.
 
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Kamnik.
5.  On 28 November 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings concerning essentially a division of joint property before the Ljubljana District Court. On 14 December 1998 the applicant’s claim was referred to the Kamnik Local Court. The proceedings were initially conducted before the Kamnik Local Court (First set of proceedings) but were later separated into two sets of proceedings, and in part referred to the Ljubljana District Court (second set of proceedings).
6.  Between 1999 and 2001 the Kamnik Local Court held three hearings.
7.  On 19 June 2002 the applicant lodged a request to refer her case to another court having subject matter jurisdiction. Due to the applicant’s request a hearing scheduled for 26 June 2002 was adjourned.
8.  On 5 September 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request.
9.  After the applicant had amended her claim on 9 January 2003, the local court postponed the hearing scheduled for 14 January 2003 in order to allow the defendant to reply to the amended claim.
10.  On 12 September 2003 the applicant lodged a motion for an interim order asking the court to order the defendant to vacate the disputed premises and to order an entry in the land register prohibiting the alienation and encumbrance of the property. On 20 October 2003 the Kamnik Local Court partially rejected the applicant’s motion. The applicant appealed.
11.  On 18 February 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
12.  On 6 June 2005 the Kamnik Local Court issued a decision to suspend the proceedings. On 14 September 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court annulled the decision suspending the proceedings.
13.  Between 2003 and 2005 the applicant lodged two supervisory appeals with the Ministry of Justice and on several occasions requested the Kamnik Local Court to schedule a hearing and decide the case.
14.  At a hearing on 1 January 2006 the Kamnik Local Court decided to postpone the main hearing until 10 March 2006 in order to allow the defendant to consider the settlement proposal of the applicant.
15.  After the parties to the procedure failed to reach a settlement, the Kamnik Local Court, after holding a hearing on 10 March 2006, on that day dismissed the claim of the applicant. The applicant appealed.
16.  On 21 March 2007 the applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the Ljubljana Higher Court. Subsequently the applicant lodged an appeal on the points of law with the Supreme Court.
17.  On 24 May 2007 the Supreme Court discontinued the proceedings due to the settlement reached in the second set of proceedings and the applicant’s withdrawal of the appeal.
18.  The second set of proceedings relates to the part of the applicant’s initial claim that exceeded the competence of the local court and was referred to the Ljubljana District Court on 7 January 2004.
19.  Five hearings were held between 6 July 2004 and 22 May 2007. On the latter date the parties reached a settlement agreement and the proceedings were discontinued on 28 May 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Ljubljana.
5.  On 6 August 1998 the applicant instituted a labour dispute before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court seeking the annulment of the decisions of 9 June 1998 and 23 July 1998 whereby her contract had been terminated due to her unauthorised absence from work.
6.  On 16 February 2000 the first-instance court delivered a judgment rejecting her request. She appealed.
7.  On 20 June 2003 the Higher Labour and Social Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. The appeal court found that the facts had not been properly established and that as a consequence the application of the law was also questionable.
8.  On 29 January 2004 the first-instance court rejected the applicant’s claim. She appealed.
9.  On 26 May 2006 the appeal was rejected. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
10.  On 11 March 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
11.  On 11 November 2008 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal.
12.  On 5 April 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court seeking payment of benefits.
13.  On 9 June 2003 the first-instance court delivered a judgment upholding her request in part. An appeal was lodged.
14.  On 2 September 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Labour and Social Court remitted the case for re-examination.
15.  On 12 April 2006 the first-instance court rendered a judgment. An appeal was lodged.
16.  On 14 February 2007 the appeal was rejected and on 15 December 2008 the appeal on points of law was rejected. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal
17.  On 17 November 2009 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as being lodged out of time.
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Minsk, Belarus.
6.  On an unspecified date the applicant, a former investigator with the military prosecutor’s office, challenged in court the lawfulness of his discharge from the army.
7.  On 23 November 2001 the Chelyabinsk Garrison Military Court dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The applicant appealed.
8.  On 17 January 2002 the Uralskiy Circuit Military Court upheld on appeal the substance of the judgment of 23 November 2001.
9.  On 5 August 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia granted a request submitted by the applicant for supervisory review of the judgments of 23 November 2001 and 17 January 2002.
10.  On 27 October 2004 the Presidium of the Uralskiy Circuit Military Court quashed the above-mentioned judgments by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
11.  On 16 December 2004 the Chelyabinsk Garrison Military Court again dismissed the applicant’s claims in full, noting that the applicant had failed to lodge them within the statutory three-year period. The applicant’s counsel attended the hearing, but the applicant himself was not present. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment.
12.  On 21 January 2005 the Chelyabinsk Garrison Military Court sent a letter to the applicant’s address notifying him of the appeal hearing fixed for 15 February 2005. It appears that the applicant did not receive the letter.
13.  On 15 February 2005 the Uralskiy Circuit Military Court upheld the judgment of 16 December 2004 on appeal. The applicant did not attend the hearing. The court heard two army officers representing the respondent.
14.  On an unspecified date the applicant asked the Uralskiy Circuit Military Court for supervisory review of the judgments in his case. He argued that the courts had erroneously applied the statutory time-limit to his claims.
15.  On 21 June 2005 the Uralskiy Circuit Military Court dismissed the applicant’s request for supervisory review. An identical request subsequently submitted by the applicant to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation was dismissed on 30 January 2006.
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Velenje.
6.  On 10 August 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against the insurance company Zavarovalnica Triglav before the Celje District Court seeking compensation for damage sustained at the workplace.
7.  Between 18 March 2002 and 3 June 2002 the first-instance court held two hearings and appointed one expert.
8.  At the last hearing the court rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s claim in part. Both parties appealed.
9.  On 8 November 2002 the first-instance court referred the case to the Celje Higher Court.
10.  On 4 December 2003 the Celje Higher Court returned the case-file since the appeal of the defendant had not been served on the applicant. The case was again referred to the appeal court on 3 March 2004.
11.  On 4 May 2005 the Celje Higher Court delivered a judgment remitting the case in part for re-examination. The appeal court found that the amount of compensation had been erroneously calculated.
12.  On 7 September 2005 the Celje District Court held an opening hearing. Since the applicant lodged a preliminary submission only two days before the scheduled hearing the court adjourned the main hearing to 17 October 2005.
13.  On 17 October 2005 the court held the second hearing and delivered its judgment. The defendant appealed.
14.  On 1 February 2006 the applicant lodged a request for the corrigendum of the judgment. The judgment was corrected on 10 February 2006.
15.  On 25 January 2007 the Celje Higher Court rejected the appeal. The judgment was served on the parties on 5 March 2007.
5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Šmarje pri Jelšah.
6.  On 13 June 1995 the Žiri Municipality instituted enforcement proceedings against the company KODA SPAAR d.o.o. before the Kranj Basic Court.
7.  On 28 June 1995 the writ of execution was issued. The company lodged an objection.
8.  On 5 September 1995 the first-instance court issued a decision annulling the writ of execution.
9.  On 6 November 1995 the case was referred to the Kranj District Court and was to be decided in the framework of contentious proceedings.
10.  On 21 November 1999 the court issued a decision that it had no jurisdiction and the case was referred to Škofja Loka Local Court.
11.  On 25 November 1999 the Škofja Loka Local Court initiated a jurisdictional dispute.
12.  On 30 August 2000 the Ljubljana Higher Court assigned the case to the Kranj District Court.
13.  On 17 October 2000 the first-instance court received an extract from the Register of Companies stating that the company KODA SPAAR d.o.o. had been struck out from the Register pursuant to Article 580 § 5 and 6 of the Companies Act.
14.  On 8 January 2001 the creditor requested the continuation of the proceedings against the applicant, since he had been the founder and owner of the company.
15.  On 27 August 2001 the first-instance court issued a decision on continuation of proceedings against the applicant.
16.  On 10 September 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal and a request for an exemption from court fees.
17.  On 24 October 2001 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the appeal.
18.  On 20 December 2001 the applicant lodged a request for protection of legality, which was rejected.
19.  On 27 August 2002 the Kranj District Court issued a decision staying the proceeding pending the decision of the Constitutional Court concerning the suspension of implementation of a chapter of the Financial Operations of Companies Act.
20.  On 17 January 2003 the proceedings resumed.
21.  On 17 December 2003 a hearing concerning the possibility of a settlement was held. The applicant lodged a request for legal aid, an exemption from court fees and a counterclaim seeking compensation for damages.
22.  On 11 February 2004 a hearing was held and the first-instance court rendered a judgment annulling the writ of execution of 28 June 1995. An appeal was lodged.
23.  On 16 February 2005 the Ljubljana Higher Court remitted the case for re-examination.
24.  On 31 August 2005 a hearing was held and the first-instance court issued a judgment upholding the writ of execution. The applicant appealed.
25.  On 21 June 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal and annulled the writ of execution.
26.  On 4 September 2006 the applicant lodged a request claiming reimbursement of legal costs. His request was rejected on 10 October 2006.
5.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Lesce.
6.  In 1993 the company DOMPLAN Kranj instituted enforcement proceedings against the applicant before the Kranj Basic Court. The enforcement order was issued on 20 April 1993.
7.  On 28 June 1994 the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia.
8.  On 28 July 1994 the case was reassigned to the Radovljica District Court.
9.  On 23 December 1994 the enforcement order was served on the applicant. She lodged an objection.
10.  On 13 September 1995 the enforcement order was annulled and the case was to be adjudicated in the framework of contentious proceedings.
11.  On 3 October 1995 the creditor lodged another request for enforcement against the applicant. The enforcement order was issued on 23 October 1995.
12.  On 26 January 1999 the Radovljica District Court issued a decision joining the two cases.
13.  On 23 April 2001 the first-instance court held a hearing.
14.  On 9 July 2001 the first-instance court rendered a judgment, upholding the creditor’s requests. The applicant appealed.
15.  On 24 April 2002 the Ljubljana Higher Court rejected the appeal.
16.  On 7 October 2002 the creditor lodged a request for enforcement based on the judgment of 9 July 2001.
17.  On 14 October 2002 the Radovljica District Court issued an enforcement order.
18.  On 30 October 2002 the applicant lodged an objection to the order and at the same time a request for postponement of the enforcement expressing willingness to reach a settlement. The applicant’s objection was sent to the creditor on 12 September 2003. The creditor responded on 5 March 2004.
19.  On 25 May 2006 the first-instance court held a hearing and issued a decision regarding the objection against the enforcement order. The creditor appealed.
20.  On 8 March 2007 the creditor requested the proceedings to be terminated following an out-of-court settlement reached between the parties. The decision on termination of proceedings was issued on 16 March 2007.
5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Mirna.
6.  On 3 January 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings against his employer before the Novo Mesto District Court seeking compensation for damage sustained at the workplace.
7.  On 6 February 2002 the first-instance court held the first hearing. The court appointed two experts. The experts submitted their reports on 16 April 2002 and 17 January 2003.
8.  On 10 March 2003 the court held the second hearing and rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. Both parties appealed.
9.  On 18 January 2004 the Ljubljana Higher Court remitted the case for re-examination in the part concerning the amount of compensation.
10.  Between 19 April 2004 and 26 November 2004 the first-instance court held three hearings.
11.  On 21 January 2005 the court rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. The applicant appealed.
12.  On 22 February 2006 the appeal court rendered judgment amending the first-instance judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
13.  On 26 February 2007 the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with the first-instance court in accordance with the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”).
14.  On 13 April 2008 the president of the Supreme Court rejected the supervisory appeal on procedural grounds.
15.  On 17 December 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal on points of law. The decision was served on the applicant on 16 January 2009.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Logatec.
5.  On 21 May 1997 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against J.P. for fraud, alleging that on 21 August 1996 he had lent J. P. 1.000 DEM that J. P. never returned.
6.  On 27 January 1999 the Ljubljana District Attorney’s Office lodged charges against J. P. with the Ljubljana District Court for several offences of fraud, including the one relating to the applicant.
7.  On an undefined date in 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against J. P.
8.  At a hearing held on 30 October 2000 before the Ljubljana District Court the applicant submitted his pecuniary claim for damages in the criminal proceedings.
9.  On 11 June 2001 the applicant withdrew his civil claim and stated that he would submit a pecuniary claim for damages in the criminal proceedings.
10.  On 20 December 2004, after hearings had been held on 22 September 2004, 27 October 2004, 23 November 2004, 10 December 2004, the Ljubljana District Court found the defendant J. P. guilty of several offences of fraud. As regards the offence relating to the applicant, the District Court rejected the charges due to the expiry of the absolute period of limitation and accordingly dismissed his pecuniary claims.
11.  On 22 February 2007 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
12.  On 15 October 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal on the basis that the applicant had no standing with regard to the proceedings he was complaining of.
5.  In 1996 the applicant company GRUPA ZASTAVA VOZILA A.D. concluded a contract with the company PS ZA AVTO p.o. before a notary determining the contractual modalities concerning joint investments.
6.  On 1 December 1997 proceedings for the annulment of the above contract and notarial protocol were instituted against the applicant company before the Ljubljana District Court by the company PS ZA AVTO.
7.  On 14 July 1998 the court ordered the claim to be served on the applicant company in the Republic of Serbia with the assistance of the Ministry of Justice (“the Ministry”) through diplomatic channels.
8.  On 29 October 1998 the court made an inquiry with the Ministry concerning the service.
9.  On 12 November 1998 the Ministry informed the court that they were still waiting for a reply from the Serbian authorities.
10.  On 30 May 2000 the court received a request for third party intervention from the company ZASTAVA AVTO d.o.o.
11.  On 6 June 2000 the court made another inquiry with the Ministry concerning the service.
12.  On 29 June 2000 the applicant company’s representative sent the authority form and a request for joinder with another case.
13.  On 17 May 2001 the applicant company sent a request for a hearing to be set.
14.  The first hearing scheduled for 11 October 2001 was postponed.
15.  On 12 October 2001 the State Attorney’s Office submitted a request for third party intervention.
16.  On 10 June 2002 the court issued a decision allowing both third parties to participate in the proceedings.
17.  On 12 September 2002 the applicant company lodged a counterclaim. Due to the counterclaim the court postponed the hearing set for 19 September 2002.
18.  On 3 February 2003 the court held a settlement hearing. The parties failed to reach a settlement.
19.  On 14 April 2003 the court held the first hearing.
20.  On 23 April 2003 the applicant company requested an extension of deadline for the submission of documents. The deadline was extended by one month.
21.  On 10 November 2003 the court appointed a financial expert.
22.  On 23 February 2004 the court granted the expert’s request for the extension of the deadline for the submission of the report.
23.  On 3 May 2004 the expert submitted the report.
24.  On 6 October 2004 the court held a hearing.
25.  On 13 December 2004 the court rendered a judgment ruling in favour of the applicant company. The notarial protocol and the contract remained in force. The plaintiff appealed.
26.  On 7 November 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court delivered a judgment amending the first-instance judgment and ruling against the applicant company. The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law.
27.  On 12 May 2008 the Supreme Court delivered a judgment upholding the appeal court’s decision. The applicant company lodged a constitutional appeal.
28.  On 13 May 2010 the Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as unfounded.